New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arbitral award

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2021

RESTAURANT BRANDS LIMITED v QST LIMITED [2021] NZCA 680

Citation

(2021) 22 NZCPR 815
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the arbitrator and party-appointed expert correctly interpreted cl 4.2 of the sublease: the rent review requires valuation of the underlying freehold market undeveloped block value of the physical areas identified in cls 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, disregarding leasehold encumbrances imposed by the unit plan; the tenant's contrary construction (valuing a leasehold stratum estate) is incoherent and not strongly arguable, so leave was properly refused and the award stands.
16 Jul 2021

RESTAURANT BRANDS LTD v QST LTD [2021] NZHC 1798

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1798
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted because the interpretation issue (whether contractual interpretation should override land law principles in defining 'the Land') is a question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument and may be 'strongly arguable' when viewed properly; the private interest (substantial money and remaining lease term) marginally outweighed the costs and delay of further appeal; costs reserved pending outcome of the appeal.
23 Oct 2018

SALTBURN HOLDINGS LTD v PENROSE LEASEHOLD LTD [2018] NZHC 2734

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2734
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed appeal emphasised factual matters rather than a question of law and the application was out of time; consequently leave was not granted to pursue an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
7 Aug 2018

NGĀTI HURUNGATERANGI & ORS v NGĀTI WĀHIAO [2018] NZHC 1991

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1991
Court

High Court

Costs for the Stage One High Court leave proceedings lie where they fall because the Court of Appeal's grant of special leave on a new ground does not demonstrate error in the High Court leave decisions; Ngāti Whakaue is entitled to 3B costs for the Substantive High Court decision but disbursements for the transcript were disallowed as not reasonably necessary; the earlier $19,870.80 leave costs order was varied under r 14.8(2) to $9,405 given interlocutory nature and lack of service, resulting in final awards of $29,879.25 (Substantive HC Decision) and $9,405 (Second Leave to Appeal).
17 May 2017

FOREST HOLDINGS LTD v MANGATU BLOCKS INCORPORATION [2017] NZHC 1011

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1011
Court

High Court

The judge exercised discretion to refuse the interlocutory application to adduce additional evidence in support of the leave application and dismissed that application; the substantive application for leave to appeal was listed for hearing with directions for written submissions and a common bundle, indicating the court will determine leave based on the filed materials and without the refused evidence.
30 Jun 2011

TODD PETROLEUM MINING COMPANY LIMITED V SHELL (PETROLEUM MINING) COMPANY LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-485-2122

Citation

openlaw-4e5f3273_6506_4972_80bb_17c943c20f3e.pdf
Court

High Court

Court granted leave to appeal on four questions (Todd questions 2, 3, 5 and 6) as strongly arguable legal errors concerning (a) the application of HoA core terms to Kapuni/STOS relationships and KMCs, and (b) the contractual significance of STOS's RPO obligation and limits on multi-venture cost allocation; all other Todd questions and all Shell questions were held not strongly arguable and leave was denied, after applying the Doug Hood ‘strongly arguable’ standard and weighing discretionary factors (centrality, precedential value, arbitrator's expertise, significance, delay).
17 Jun 2009

HENNAH AND HENNAH V KELLY AND KELLY HC NAP CIV-2009-441-000103

Citation

openlaw-f8c5177b_8704_4feb_9cef_cdd2fd03ee06.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal refused because no question of law was established: the valuation methodology was a procedural matter for the arbitrator under the parties' agreement to arbitrate (a separate contract), the bailment agreement did not mandate live weight valuation nor did circumstances support implying such a term, and even if a question of law arose there was no strongly arguable error under the Gold & Resource Developments test.
17 Apr 2007

SKLENARS & ANOR V POLLOCK & ANOR HC NWP CIV-2006-443-631

Citation

openlaw-d0cb8cf6_3dd0_49f3_a0ba_a832b90e8c35.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the reformulated questions of law raised serious and arguable issues that could substantially affect the parties' rights, the amount at stake and NEEMA considerations favored court determination, and therefore the High Court should decide the three specified questions of law despite the arbitrator's industry expertise.